On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:39, Al Sparber wrote:
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid
documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also
through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr
G'day
This is called the web standards group. I imagine that those here
essentially adhere to the value of web standards, and discuss things
in this context.
And we are. Where in the standard does it say we are not *allowed* to
use even one table for layout?
3.3. of which says: Use
This is called the web standards group. I imagine that those here
essentially adhere to the value of web standards, and discuss things
in this context.
And we are.Where in the standard does it say we are not *allowed* to
use even one table for layout?
Tables should not be used to position
Dead Table Sketch
The cast:
MR. PRALINE
John Cleese
SHOP OWNER
Michael Palin
The sketch:
A customer enters a web development shop.
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The owner does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
At 11:37 PM 9/6/2005, Chris Blown wrote:
The mess that is tables - and here I mean a bunch of tables for layout -
can easily lead to broken markup, especially when you have to go back a
re-jig something, whether is easier than CSS/P doesn't matter, the fact
remains.
The problem is that browsers
G'day again :-)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables
unless of course you would argue the difference between should not and
not allowed, in which case I guess you would win.
It's a working draft, not a recommendation or a standard and you're right. I used to
Paul,
Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se
that leads one to err more frequently.
on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is.
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables (with the errors
Bert,
It's a working draft, not a recommendation or a standard
Oh come on. This is precisely MS's ludicrous argument for not
supporting CSS2.1 (a subset of 2.0)
and you're right. I used to work as a QA Auditor (ISO9001). In
standards parlance, should not has a different meaning than
On 9/7/05 1:19 AM John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
The simple fact remains, that in my research into some of the biggest
and most popular Australian web sites, not a single site out of about
100 I have surveyed, which is table based has been valid. And the
errors in table based
Al,
With all due respect, that is not very good logic. So, someone
inexperienced enough to make an invalid table layout is going to
float right through the process of making a CSS-positioned layout?
That's quite a spin, John :-)
This is based on research into the web sites of dozens of
This thread is getting longer by the minute, but I enjoy the debate :-)
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association
with table code).
OK, you found a strong correlation, but are you drawing the
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association with
table code).
I guess that's what is one of the many annoying things about this
debate. Its very subjective. This particular thread started when I
Bert,
OK, you found a strong correlation, but are you drawing the right
conclusion?
1. How many were generated with a WYSIWYG editor?
Why would that matter. Not even the tools can get tables right?
2. How many were generated by some sort of server side script?
So script writers can;t
At 01:19 AM 9/7/2005, John Allsopp wrote:
Paul,
Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se
that leads one to err more frequently.
on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is.
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents
Paul,
It's not the correlation I'm questioning, it's the implied
causality. I hope you'll make a distinction between them in your
article.
I might be wrong, but I did not at any point argue that Tables cause
invalid documents. Not to say I couldn't, see below :-)
I said there was a
And a spot on 2c it is too!
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
Seona Bellamy wrote:
[snip]
Standards / semantic code / CSS-P layouts / whatever else you want to
call them are just a tool. Tables for layout are another tool. The
mark of a good craftsman is understanding all the tools at
G'day
1. How many were generated with a WYSIWYG editor?
Why would that matter. Not even the tools can get tables right?
If a large portion of the sites' developers used a flawed tool, it
explains partly why a large portion of them had the same problems.
That's why it matters.
2. How
How about letting the table/div thread die? The debate is getting rather
tiring and it doesn't look like the argument will be resolved any time
soon. How about we agree to disagree for now?
Julie Romanowski
State Farm Insurance Company
J2EE Engagement Team
phone: 309-735-5248
cell: 309-532-4027
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 19:01 +0800, Bert Doorn wrote:
3. How recently had they been updated?
Why would that be in any way relevant?
If a site is 3-5 years old, do you expect it to be written in the new way?
I'm just going to pick on this point, because it's relatively open to
attack and
From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
G'day again :-)
Keep reading...
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid
It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for
layout purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be
achieved using
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
I have yet to be convinced that clearly breaking the spirit and
letter of a number of web standards, and all the attendant other
costs
Joshua,
thank you for the link, I have been looking for this article for
several years (having read it all those years ago)
John
If you still believe this semantic paradigm is something new, take a
look at this article written in 1997. Yes, 1997.
John Allsopp wrote:
Paul,
Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se
that leads one to err more frequently.
on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is.
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables
Bert Doorn wrote:
G'day again :-)
Keep reading...
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid
It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for
layout
purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be achieved
using
CSS*.
*unless the
- Original Message -
From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:09 AM
Keep reading...
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid
It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for layout
purposes *unless the
Stevio wrote:
However, at what point do we say, we are better doing this layout in
tables rather than using complex CSS with various hacks? In terms of
future maintenance, the CSS solution will be more difficult due to
the complexity of the hacks and scripts.
I don't agree. As Kenny said, the
From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stevio wrote:
However, at what point do we say, we are better doing this layout
in
tables rather than using complex CSS with various hacks? In terms
of
future maintenance, the CSS solution will be more difficult due to
the complexity of the hacks and
Al Sparber wrote:
I don't agree. As Kenny said, the presentational hacks are part of
the
presentational layer.
It is easier to detach a Styles Sheet from a document than to remove
its
table markup.
These debates always sink into a tables versus CSS mentality and that
is really sad. The
From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't agree. As Kenny said, the presentational hacks are part of
the
presentational layer.
It is easier to detach a Styles Sheet from a document than to
remove
its
table markup.
These debates always sink into a tables versus CSS mentality and
that
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Most things can be achieved with
CSS, especially if you use various hacks and scripts etc. However, at what
point do we say, we are better doing this layout in tables rather than
using
complex CSS with various hacks? In terms of future maintenance, the
*unless the desired effect...*
Why fighting the medium?
If that *desire effect* is purely visual, then I think there is a problem...
Yep, they're called 'Clients' :)
Paul
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
I'd say that people who rely heavily on tables are the ones who obviously do
not care
about standards.
Or they just DON'T KNOW.
I work in an organisation where our only other coder hasn't been formally
trained, was thrown into intranet work out of necessity and has learnt 'web
stuff' by
Stephen,
I like this list in that people are so willing to debate the
issues, as that is how we learn and understand what is best, but I
think we should not blindly use CSS. We must use it wisely and
examine how we are using it so we don't make new mistakes.
using CSS is not a blind or
THREAD CLOSED
The reason for the closure of this thread is that while it had been
interesting and informative, it has definitely moved away from open
discussion into strongly held views and lines of demarcation.
Please do not reply to this thread or comment on the thread closure to the
list. If
The only example of purely efficient structural markup I've seen inthe past few years is this:
http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/articles/css/div_less/
You want to explain this one?
*ul*li*pThis page is laid out using heading, paragraph, and list tags. Neither SPANs nor DIVs have been used./
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess what keeps me coming back back to this pointless and
frustrating discussion is certainly not for my sake. I could care
less that people choose to continue using tables for layout. But
when people advocate it as a sensible, reasonable alternative
From: russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon - THREAD CLOSED
THREAD CLOSED
The reason for the closure of this thread is that while it had been
interesting
Bert,
So you used to be an ISO9001 auditor - I still am one.
Tell me, HOW DID YOU ESCAPE ???
John
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to
I would posit that this association of poor markup and table-based design
has more to do with a certain approach to web development than merely a
raised risk of error in using table-based design. What I mean by that is
that most designers/developers who are entrenched in the table-based
approach
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Futter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:02 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
On 7/9/05 10:24 AM, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the location of the overwhelming
Andreas,
I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of
invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use
tables have
got an old-fashioned mindset.
Whatever the reason, if you see a table based design, the chances of
it being invalid are raised
3. Programmers, who almost unanimously seem to treat the inevitable HTML
output of their web apps with contempt, or at best, as an afterthought.
In my world I am starting to win the battle with developers. For us the
fundamental change was to move the ASP.NET developers away from the use
of
-Original Message-
From: John Allsopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:41 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Andreas,
I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising
the risk of
invalid
Not that I'm into me too posts but here's my 2 cents.
I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of
invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have
got an old-fashioned mindset.
Until a few years ago, I used tables for layout, exclusively.
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid
documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also
through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr
elements).
In short, using tables is a very good way of
Al Sparber wrote:
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the
up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a
questionable
From: Peter Asquith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Al Sparber wrote:
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits
the up-front cost and training required to get to
On 07/09/2005, at 1:50 PM, Peter Asquith wrote:
Al Sparber wrote:
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that
limits the up-front cost and training required to
Al,
Peter wrote,
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that
limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market?
Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to
learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one?
Al wrote
A
49 matches
Mail list logo
